Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schoepflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-05 07:04:41

--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Markus Schöpflin" <markus.schoepflin_at_g...>

> > - Create a compiler independent STLport jam file which is able to
> any given toolset. I don't know if this is possible, though.
> I think it is. However, we should think about the design a bit
> 1. Should it be based on a more general mechanism for replacing the
built-in standard library?

Probably yes but I don't know if it's worth the effort.

> 2. Shall we arrange things so that you can build both with and
> stlport, and such that each build goes in a separate subvariant

Yes, and this works already, just say

TOOLS = msvc msvc-stlport ;

et voilà, you end up with both variants.

> > - Handling of other STLport versions (betas, bugfix releases)
which don't
> affect link compatibility.
> Hmm, I'm not sure there are ever any STLPort revisions that
preserve link
> compatibility.

There will be a 4.5.1 which hopefully preserves link compatibility.

> > - Support for different STLport configurations (all these defines
> stl_user_config.h) Handle them in the toolset or leave it to the
> Good question.
> For the most part, stl_user_config is no longer supported, IIRC. I
think the
> only thing worth supporting (and even this is arguable, since it
> really work well) is STLP_NO_IOSTREAMS. But maybe I've overlooked

Really? doesn't mention
this and the fact that those macros are well documented makes me
belief differently.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at